Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35965841›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2022

Patient Perceptions of Switching to a Generic Dry Powder Inhaler - Increased Understanding Through Journey Mapping.

Sarah E Ray, Vanessa Boudewyns, Christine Davis, Janice P Tzeng, Ila Srivastava, Oluwamurewa Oguntimein, Denise S Conti, Karen B Feibus

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sarah E RayCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7023-4326
Vanessa BoudewynsCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Christine DavisCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Janice P TzengCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Ila SrivastavaOffice of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Oluwamurewa OguntimeinOffice of Medication Error Prevention and Risk Management, Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Denise S ContiOffice of Safety and Clinical Evaluation, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Karen B FeibusOffice of Research and Standards, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5964-9048

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This qualitative study explored patients' attitudes about and perceptions of generic dry powder inhaler (DPI) substitution for the brand product and patients' views of generic product quality, efficacy, design, and usability. Methods: Forty COPD and asthma patients (36 adults, four adolescents), who were actively using a brand DPI product, participated in one of six focus groups. Participants completed a journey mapping exercise to assess attitudes and opinions about a scenario where they refill their prescription and unexpectedly receive a generic DPI instead of their brand DPI. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Results: The hypothetical scenario of unexpectedly receiving a generic DPI elicited mixed feelings including: happiness and relief about potential cost savings, confusion, disappointment, anger, and/or frustration with the unexpected switch. Participants in most groups anticipated anxiety or hesitation in using the generic DPI due to concerns about potential differences in usability, uncertainty about correct use, and questions about efficacy. Participants across all groups said they would ask a pharmacist or healthcare provider for information or answers to their questions, and some participants said they would use online resources. When participants held the brand and generic DPI devices, most preferred the brand DPI device and found it easier, less cumbersome, or more convenient to use (due to size and weight). However, many participants reiterated that the potential reduced cost of the generic DPI would be a primary factor in their decision-making related to generic DPI substitution for their brand DPI. Conclusion: Patients experienced a mixture of positive and negative feelings when faced with an unexpected generic DPI substitution. Some patients have doubts about their ability to successfully navigate differences in generic device design, and most expressed the desire to participate in discussions and decision-making with their HCP about generic DPI sameness and substitution.

Indexed as

Dry Powder InhalersPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdministration, InhalationAdolescentAdultDrugs, GenericHumansPowdersDrugs, GenericPowdersasthmaCOPDdrug-device combination productsfocus groupsgeneric drugsmedical devices

Identifiers

PMID35965841
PMCPMC9367651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.